Family?

I’m having a debate with myself on this question: When is it wiser to have a family versus stay single?

Marty Nemko #1: If you have a great career or are headed for one, family can impose a too great a price on it.

Marty Nemko #2: But many people find family to be the best part of their life.

Marty Nemko #1: Many people with great careers don’t feel that way, especially if they feel they’re making a difference. And no matter what career, many people find family causes more pain than gain. Think of how many people fight viciously with their spouse, often ending in an exhausting, years-long divorce proceeding with financial ramifications that can last many years. And while we romanticize children, think of how many people are deeply estranged from their kids. And even if not estranged, think of all the stresses: from non-stop hours of inexplicable crying to the Terrible Twos’ tantrums to school problems if only refusing to do homework, bad friends, drugs, ill-advised sex, pregnancy, screaming matches. And ultimately kids have the power to blow off their parents.

Marty Nemko #2: You’re viewing a ¾-full glass as ¾ empty. Most people do, net, feel that family is the best part of their life.

Marty Nemko #1: I’m not arguing against family. I’m saying that the decision to have a spouse and children should not be reflexive, which for many people it is. Even today, many people feel pressured to marry and have kids. How many parents say, “So when are you getting married? I’d love to be a grandparent.” And when you see all your friends getting married and having kids, it’s easy to feel you better do it too.

Marty Nemko #2: No one could advocate blindly following societal strictures but your tone is too anti-family. You’re also assuming that family interactions can’t be improved. Relationship counseling, parentingcoaching, and yes, Psychology Today articles can help.

Marty Nemko #1: Don’t forget about extended family: the wayward uncle, the obnoxious aunt, and of course, the in-laws. There’s a reason there are a zillion jokes about painful in-laws.

Marty Nemko #2: Again, you’re being too negative. Many people like their in-laws. And if you don’t like one or two, you can usually minimize interaction with them. That’s hardly a reason to stay single.

Marty Nemko #1: Well, there’s another factor you can’t say is unimportant: freedom. A single person comes home after work and on the weekends and has the freedom to do what s/he wants: eat what and when s/he wants, go out or collapse in front of the TV. When you have a live-in partner, not to mention kids, your life, which wasn’t your own at work, continues not to be: “Daddy, mommy won’t let me watch TV!” “Honey, our place is a mess. Would you clean up while I’m making dinner. “Sweetie, can I tell you about my day?” or “We need to talk about our relationship.”

Marty Nemko #2: Again too negative. It usually feels good to interact with your kids and your partner. Even household chores can feel good, a relief from the workplace’s stressful and intellectually demanding tasks—and with housework, you quickly see the result of your efforts. One minute the dining room is a pig sty and ten minutes later, it looks nice.

Marty Nemko #1: Let’s wrap this up. Like most decisions, whether to stay single depends on the individual. Introverts might prioritize the solitude, extraverts the interaction. Remember, I’m not saying you shouldn’t have relationships. But if you stay single and have your own place, you can be social when you want. It’s not forced on you every day. And regarding children, I know it’s not the same as having kids, but many people feel they have enough kid time by visiting, phoning, or Skyping with nephews and nieces, volunteering to be a Big Brother or Sister, or tutoring kids.

Marty Nemko #1 and #2: I hope this internal dialogue will help you get a bit clearer about what’s right for you.

A single person comes home and has the freedom to do what s/he wants. . . .

. . . unless she or he wants to spend time with her or his spouse.

One thing that gets lost in this discussion is that, for some of us, being single is not a choice, at least not one we make. I'm thirty years old, and I've never had a single romantic partner, and I probably never will. I've come to realize that this is because I am intrinsically, universally unattractive. I've got lots of great qualities that might make me a good partner, but none of that matters if I can't attract anyone. I would absolutely love to come home and spend time with someone who cares about me and genuinely loves me.

So tell me, what good is the freedom to do anything BUT what you want?

If indeed you're, as you say, "universally unattractive," true freedom is not being shackled by what you can't have. There are so many amazing things one can do with one's freedom. For example, if you're lonely, have roommates, get deeply involved in an organization where you can make friends and make a difference. And if the desire for a romantic partner is mainly sexual, some combination of masturbation and seeing sex workers (that's expensive) may at least take the edge off.

It's a personal preference. A lot of people go to a lot of trouble to get married and start a family. Some people fall into it by 'accident', with varying degrees of happiness as a result. For some, kids and family are of no interest at all and fulfillment is found in other ways.

What I do think we do need is to stop imposing it onto people and painting this idealistic picture of kids, wife/husband, two cars and the white picket fence. You never know what you're going to get. Some families endure terrible trauma, domestic violence, illness of their children or loved ones that involved intense, lifelong care above and beyond the already difficult task of caring for children and partners. These burdens most often fall onto women, yet there's an intense pressure on young women and even little girls to get married and have children. The physical and psychological impact of pregnancy and birth are also rarely mentioned or discussed. They can be life changing as far as women's health and well being.

But all we get is this dogma from day one - 'find you prince charming, get married and have babies and then you'll be truly happy'. This is not always the case. I'd guess it's more often NOT the case. So why do we keep pushing this onto girls in particular? Give them all the facts and realities and then let them decide for themselves. In every society it's almost sacrilege that women don't get married and have kids, remain single or are god forbid, lesbian. Most men escape this pressure and are even lauded for being single bachelors and careerists. What is the agenda there?

It's probably one of the strongest peer pressures -- to find a wife & breed. I think Nemko #2 is Way overly-positive. I'm awesome with kids; they're great. And it CAN be great to have a family, and it CAN be far from great... and for many, it has it's pros and cons, and would have been a better decision to start one at X time vs Y time, but the peer pressure pushed one to get it at Y time, and therefore they have less of a job, etc.

But you have to remember that the WHO is more important than the WHAT. I'm talking about a spouse in which you may start breeding with. It's peer pressure to get married for the sake of being married... much like some people are in love with being in love. Not such a good idea.

In our non-survivalist, modern world, it's wisely understood as not a Necessity. Heck, if I'm a 60+ year old parent, yes, I would want my kids to "find a husband/wife" and breed. But that's just being selfish on my part. It's not like I'd be asking them to help out with some roofing project.

Don't (pursue to) get married for the sake of getting married. DUMB MOVE.

Don't have kids for the sake of having kids, to gain acceptance, good image, "because that's what you're supposed to do", avoidance of feeling alienated, too 'different', or out of place, etc. DUMB MOVE.

And the last thing one wants to do is try and convince someone who doesn't have that internal "clock" that provides a yearning to have kids, that they should get married and start fertilizing some eggs. Why? You know those married-with-children situations, in which there's no shortage of in society, that DOESN'T bode so well? Yeah -- you're basically skyrocketing the chances of that if you happen to convince the person for a while that it's "the thing to do".

Let's just call a spade a spade -- for those who are successful and having kids would move in the way... whether it be out of conveniences & freedom in life that they have more of than others, or they're not in position to a fruitful parent do to a busy & successful career -- they're pressured To Fit In.

It's no different than any other Peer Pressure... just more powerful coming from Relatives & Mom/Dad, as opposed to friends in high school & college.

Just a few examples of how we treat people who don't have a family. We don't even acknowledge adult children who care - physically and financially care for their disabled and/or elderly parents.

Don't forget those saying, "Blood is thicker than water," "Family comes first," "If you have family then you are rich." We ignore children in foster care, orphanages, and group homes unless it's holiday time and we want to donate some money.

We over value family so much that we neglect a great percentage of people who don't have one.